Preventive detention procedure invalid where State counsel was allowed but the detenu was denied fair assistance and records were withheld.

Preventive detention under the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure cannot proceed on an arbitrary footing. Where the Advisory Board allowed State counsel to appear but denied comparable legal assistance to the detenu, the procedure was unfair and contrary to Articles 14 and 21, even though the detenu had no absolute right to legal representation. The detention was also vitiated because the Board's record was not forwarded to the State Government, preventing proper application of mind before confirmation. The detention order was therefore invalid and release followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the Advisory Board allowed legal assistance to the State while denying the same to the detenu, and whether the consequent procedure, including the non-forwarding of the Board's record to the State Government, rendered the continued detention illegal.

Analysis: The detention was examined under the constitutional requirements of Article 21 read with Article 14, which insist that any procedure depriving personal liberty must be reasonable, fair, and non-arbitrary. Although Section 11(4) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 disentitled the detenu from insisting as of right on representation by a legal practitioner, it did not compel the Advisory Board to create an uneven procedure by permitting State counsel to appear while refusing comparable assistance to the detenu. The Board was expected to act fairly to both sides, and differential treatment of that kind was held to be arbitrary. In addition, the record showed that the Board's proceedings were not forwarded to the State Government, even though the Government was required under Section 12 to apply its own mind to the material before confirming the detention. That procedural lapse amounted to a serious infirmity affecting the legality of the confirmation order.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and the detenu was entitled to release.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded because the detention was sustained through an arbitrary and unfair procedure inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and the statutory scheme governing preventive detention.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, a procedure that confers a litigation advantage on the State while denying the detenu a fair opportunity, and that fails to place the relevant material before the confirming authority, is arbitrary and unlawful under Articles 14 and 21.

---